Attorney Charles Jerome Ware is a premier wrongful death attorney in Maryland and Washington, D.C. He is a principal in the national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors.
Multi-millionaire August Adolphus Busch IV, former CEO of Anheuser-Busch, the giant beer company, who ended the Busch family 156-years control of the company in 2008 when it was sold to InBev, has settled a wrongful death lawsuit for $1,750,000.
The wrongful death civil suit was brought by the family of Busch's (aka "The Fourth's") girlfriend, Adrienne Martin, against Busch alleging negligence in Martin's accidental death from cocaine and oxycodine (a prescription painkiller) overdue while a death in Busch's mansion in 2010. She was 27.
$1.35 million of the settlement will be paid in trust to Martin's 12-year old son, Blake Martin; $200,000 will go to Adrienne Martin's divorced mother, Christine Trampler; and $200,000 will also be paid to Adrienne Martin's divorced father, Larry Elby, who will place his share in trust for his grandson, Blake Martin.
The 48-year old Bush IV pocketed about $100 million in 2008 from the InBev takeover of Anheuser-Bush company, and he has received additional fees of at least $120,000 a month from the deal since the takeover.
[www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-30/ "Busch Heir Settles Wrongful Death Case for $1.75 Million"; www.stltoday.com/news/ "August Busch IV Settled Wrongful Death Suit Over Girlfriend"; Lawyers USA, 11-6-2012/ "Wrongful Death Case Against Former Beer Baron Settles"; "Anheuser CEO Fight for His Legacy", Wall Street Journal, A1, May 2008].
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
HONEST EMPLOYEE REFUSES OVERTIME PAY, THEN HARASSED BY EMPLOYER AGENCY
The national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., is : "Still working. Still committed. Still here to make a difference."
The Scene: Office of the U.S. Border Patrol, Port Angeles, State of Washington, October 30th, 2012 (Reported).
Border Patrol officer Christian Sanchez is a man of many strengths: honest, devoutly religious, God-fearing, straight-talking, a good employee, and courageous. Unfortunately, and regrettably, in the Border Patrol Office at Port Angeles, in the State of Washington, Christian Sanchez's strengths are considered weaknesses.
Christian Sanchez's story here is an employment "overtime" saga with a strange twist. Most employees complain about the lack of, or even sue for, their overtime pay. Honest Sanchez, instead, refused to accept overtime pay for work he had not performed!
In truth, it appears there were numerous problems with the Port Angeles, Washington U.S. Border Patrol Office to which Christian Sanchez was assigned: too many employees, not enough work to do, low levels of accomplishment, and yet, somehow, enormous overtime was allegedly being claimed and paid in spite of it all.
Christian Sanchez would have no part of the charade.
Washington State employment laws, like those in most other states, hold that employees receive a fair wage for a fair day's work, are provided appropriate meal and rest breaks, and those not exempt are paid a higher rate computed at straight time plus one-half for any hours worked beyond a standard work day.
Many a lawsuit has been filed alleging violations of Washington employee rights.
However, in this somewhat bizarre case, Sanchez reportedly decided to stand up for the rights of the taxpayer, incurring certain risks of his own in so doing.
As articulated by a release from the Government Accountability Project (GAP, 10/24/12), Christian Sanchez was employed as a border patrol officer at Port Angeles, Washington. A devout Christian, the God-fearing Sanchez was troubled by what he saw while stationed at Port Angeles, Washington.
When he had an opportunity to present to Congress, in July of last year, he disclosed there was little work to keep a staff of 40 persons occupied. Most of the time, the employees would pass the time taking long coastal drives, amongst other activities that allegedly included harassment of visible minorities.
Sanchez, it was reported, was equally troubled when the entire crew allegedly began receiving overtime pay in an apparent total mockery of Washington employee rights. Unable to justify the extra money in his own conscience, Sanchez is reported to have refused the overtime, as he had done nothing to earn the extra pay, and held he would be cheating taxpayers if he did so.
Following his presentation to Congress, it is alleged that Sanchez suffered retaliation by others in his unit, including not being assigned any meaningful work, putting Sanchez and his family under constant surveillance, ordering him to undergo repeated and random drug tests, and subjecting him to public ridicule.
It was reported in the GAP release that Sanchez was stripped of his role as agency chaplain.
The matter was finally put to rest by way of a mediated consensus review. Sanchez was reassigned to a post of his choosing, his record was cleared and his eligibility for duties as a chaplain restored.
Sanchez's Washington State Employment lawyers said it was a good and decent resolution for a man who is devout in his faith, and only wanted to do the right thing.
It is not known what happened to the office management, or the other border patrol staffers in that particular office who were collecting overtime when there was allegedly no work to justify the expense, according to tenets entrenched in Washington Labor Law.
[www.lawyersandsettlements.com/ "A Washington Employment Case With A Twist"]
The Scene: Office of the U.S. Border Patrol, Port Angeles, State of Washington, October 30th, 2012 (Reported).
Border Patrol officer Christian Sanchez is a man of many strengths: honest, devoutly religious, God-fearing, straight-talking, a good employee, and courageous. Unfortunately, and regrettably, in the Border Patrol Office at Port Angeles, in the State of Washington, Christian Sanchez's strengths are considered weaknesses.
Christian Sanchez's story here is an employment "overtime" saga with a strange twist. Most employees complain about the lack of, or even sue for, their overtime pay. Honest Sanchez, instead, refused to accept overtime pay for work he had not performed!
In truth, it appears there were numerous problems with the Port Angeles, Washington U.S. Border Patrol Office to which Christian Sanchez was assigned: too many employees, not enough work to do, low levels of accomplishment, and yet, somehow, enormous overtime was allegedly being claimed and paid in spite of it all.
Christian Sanchez would have no part of the charade.
Washington State employment laws, like those in most other states, hold that employees receive a fair wage for a fair day's work, are provided appropriate meal and rest breaks, and those not exempt are paid a higher rate computed at straight time plus one-half for any hours worked beyond a standard work day.
Many a lawsuit has been filed alleging violations of Washington employee rights.
However, in this somewhat bizarre case, Sanchez reportedly decided to stand up for the rights of the taxpayer, incurring certain risks of his own in so doing.
As articulated by a release from the Government Accountability Project (GAP, 10/24/12), Christian Sanchez was employed as a border patrol officer at Port Angeles, Washington. A devout Christian, the God-fearing Sanchez was troubled by what he saw while stationed at Port Angeles, Washington.
When he had an opportunity to present to Congress, in July of last year, he disclosed there was little work to keep a staff of 40 persons occupied. Most of the time, the employees would pass the time taking long coastal drives, amongst other activities that allegedly included harassment of visible minorities.
Sanchez, it was reported, was equally troubled when the entire crew allegedly began receiving overtime pay in an apparent total mockery of Washington employee rights. Unable to justify the extra money in his own conscience, Sanchez is reported to have refused the overtime, as he had done nothing to earn the extra pay, and held he would be cheating taxpayers if he did so.
Following his presentation to Congress, it is alleged that Sanchez suffered retaliation by others in his unit, including not being assigned any meaningful work, putting Sanchez and his family under constant surveillance, ordering him to undergo repeated and random drug tests, and subjecting him to public ridicule.
It was reported in the GAP release that Sanchez was stripped of his role as agency chaplain.
The matter was finally put to rest by way of a mediated consensus review. Sanchez was reassigned to a post of his choosing, his record was cleared and his eligibility for duties as a chaplain restored.
Sanchez's Washington State Employment lawyers said it was a good and decent resolution for a man who is devout in his faith, and only wanted to do the right thing.
It is not known what happened to the office management, or the other border patrol staffers in that particular office who were collecting overtime when there was allegedly no work to justify the expense, according to tenets entrenched in Washington Labor Law.
[www.lawyersandsettlements.com/ "A Washington Employment Case With A Twist"]
MCOA (MARYLAND COURT OF APPEALS) BLOG: An Update By Appellate Attorney Charles Jerome Ware (November 6th, 2012) --- Immunity, Suppression, Redistricting and Slots!
The MCOA (Maryland Court of Appeals) Blog is presented as a service by the national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors.
The Maryland Court of Appeals (MCOA) is the highest court in the state of Maryland (frequently called the Supreme Court of the state in many other state jurisdictions, as well as in the Federal judicial system). The Chief Judge, the Honorable Robert M. Bell, sits on the Court along with six (6) other associate judges.
The Court of Appeals for Maryland was created by Maryland's Constitution of 1776. The Court has sat (resided) exclusively in Annapolis since 1851. The Court's website is at www.courts.state.md.us/coappeals.
Tinsley v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth. - Maryland Court of Appeals
October 26, 2012 - Practice Areas: Constitutional Law, Injury Law:
This consolidated opinion resolved two cases heard by the Court of Appeals concerning the appropriate scope of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority's (WMATA) immunity from suit.
In both cases, Veronica Tinsley and Kim Hodge, Petitioners, slipped, fell, and were injured at WMATA operated metrorail stations. Petitioners presented a common question of whether their claims were barred by Section 80 of the WMATA Compact, and Hodge presented an additional question of whether Section 75 of the Compact limited the scope of WMATA's immunity, such that its alleged failure to abide by various County code sections rendered an immunity defense unavailable.
The Court upheld WMATA's immunity from suit, concluding (1) WMATA was immune because its underlying decision regarding proper maintenance procedures was grounded in concerns of economic and public policy; and (2) Hodge's contention that Section 75 waived WMATA's immunity in her case was without merit. (Docket: 25/12, 1/12)
Thomas v. State - Maryland Court of Appeals
October 26, 2012 - Practice Areas: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law:
Petitioner was charged with one count of sexually abusing a minor, two counts of second degree rape, and six counts of second degree sexual offense. Prior to trial, Petitioner filed a motion to suppress statements he had made to police, arguing that he had not been given Miranda warnings at the time he arrived at the police station. The circuit court agreed and suppressed the statements.
The court of special appeals reversed, determining that Petitioner was not in custody at the time he gave the statements at issue.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) a belief held by a suspect that police may have probable cause to arrest him or her is not sufficient to render the individual in custody for Miranda purposes; and (2) the motion to suppress Petitioner's statements should have been denied because, given the totality of the circumstances, Petitioner was not in custody at the time he made the statements (Docket: 130/11)
Whitley v. State Bd. of Elections - Maryland Court of Appeals
October 23, 2012 - Practice Areas: Election Law:
Following the passage of Maryland's latest congressional redistricting law, SB 1, Intervenor employed a website-based initiative to gather the signatures necessary to petition SB 1 to referendum on the general election ballot in November 2012.
The State Board of Elections certified the petition for referendum after determining that Intervenor had gathered the required number of valid signatures. Petitioners subsequently challenged the State's Board's certification of the petition on the grounds that Intervenor failed to submit a sufficient number of valid signatures, objecting to two classes of signatures validated by the State Board.
The circuit court affirmed.
The Supreme Court also affirmed, holding (1) petition signatures obtained through the use of a third-party website do not violate the statutory requirement that an individual "include" or "provide" his or her identifying information; and (2) an individual can "self-circulate" a petition by signing both as the voter and as the circulator. (Docket: 133/11)
Citizens Against Slots At The Mall v. PPE Casino Resorts Maryland, LLC
October 24, 2012 - Practice Areas: Constitutional Law, Election Law, Zoning, Planning & Land Use:
This was the latest in a series of opinions by the Court of Appeals involving the constitutional provision and the implementing legislation authorizing a limited number of slot machines at specified Maryland facilities, including facilities in the area of Anne Arundel County (County).
Held, that the Anne Arundel County zoning ordinance allowing video slot machines in certain areas of the county was not an appropriation ordinance and, therefore, was subject to a referndum under the Anne Arundel County Charter.
[www.facebook.com/Justia.Maryland; www.courts.state.md.us/coappeals; www.leagle.com/ Citizens Against Slots...; thedailyrecord.com/2012/11/04/Opinions/ Maryland Court of Appeals; Marylandcourtofappealsopinions.justia.com/ October 25, 2012]
The Maryland Court of Appeals (MCOA) is the highest court in the state of Maryland (frequently called the Supreme Court of the state in many other state jurisdictions, as well as in the Federal judicial system). The Chief Judge, the Honorable Robert M. Bell, sits on the Court along with six (6) other associate judges.
The Court of Appeals for Maryland was created by Maryland's Constitution of 1776. The Court has sat (resided) exclusively in Annapolis since 1851. The Court's website is at www.courts.state.md.us/coappeals.
Tinsley v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth. - Maryland Court of Appeals
October 26, 2012 - Practice Areas: Constitutional Law, Injury Law:
This consolidated opinion resolved two cases heard by the Court of Appeals concerning the appropriate scope of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority's (WMATA) immunity from suit.
In both cases, Veronica Tinsley and Kim Hodge, Petitioners, slipped, fell, and were injured at WMATA operated metrorail stations. Petitioners presented a common question of whether their claims were barred by Section 80 of the WMATA Compact, and Hodge presented an additional question of whether Section 75 of the Compact limited the scope of WMATA's immunity, such that its alleged failure to abide by various County code sections rendered an immunity defense unavailable.
The Court upheld WMATA's immunity from suit, concluding (1) WMATA was immune because its underlying decision regarding proper maintenance procedures was grounded in concerns of economic and public policy; and (2) Hodge's contention that Section 75 waived WMATA's immunity in her case was without merit. (Docket: 25/12, 1/12)
Thomas v. State - Maryland Court of Appeals
October 26, 2012 - Practice Areas: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law:
Petitioner was charged with one count of sexually abusing a minor, two counts of second degree rape, and six counts of second degree sexual offense. Prior to trial, Petitioner filed a motion to suppress statements he had made to police, arguing that he had not been given Miranda warnings at the time he arrived at the police station. The circuit court agreed and suppressed the statements.
The court of special appeals reversed, determining that Petitioner was not in custody at the time he gave the statements at issue.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) a belief held by a suspect that police may have probable cause to arrest him or her is not sufficient to render the individual in custody for Miranda purposes; and (2) the motion to suppress Petitioner's statements should have been denied because, given the totality of the circumstances, Petitioner was not in custody at the time he made the statements (Docket: 130/11)
Whitley v. State Bd. of Elections - Maryland Court of Appeals
October 23, 2012 - Practice Areas: Election Law:
Following the passage of Maryland's latest congressional redistricting law, SB 1, Intervenor employed a website-based initiative to gather the signatures necessary to petition SB 1 to referendum on the general election ballot in November 2012.
The State Board of Elections certified the petition for referendum after determining that Intervenor had gathered the required number of valid signatures. Petitioners subsequently challenged the State's Board's certification of the petition on the grounds that Intervenor failed to submit a sufficient number of valid signatures, objecting to two classes of signatures validated by the State Board.
The circuit court affirmed.
The Supreme Court also affirmed, holding (1) petition signatures obtained through the use of a third-party website do not violate the statutory requirement that an individual "include" or "provide" his or her identifying information; and (2) an individual can "self-circulate" a petition by signing both as the voter and as the circulator. (Docket: 133/11)
Citizens Against Slots At The Mall v. PPE Casino Resorts Maryland, LLC
October 24, 2012 - Practice Areas: Constitutional Law, Election Law, Zoning, Planning & Land Use:
This was the latest in a series of opinions by the Court of Appeals involving the constitutional provision and the implementing legislation authorizing a limited number of slot machines at specified Maryland facilities, including facilities in the area of Anne Arundel County (County).
Held, that the Anne Arundel County zoning ordinance allowing video slot machines in certain areas of the county was not an appropriation ordinance and, therefore, was subject to a referndum under the Anne Arundel County Charter.
[www.facebook.com/Justia.Maryland; www.courts.state.md.us/coappeals; www.leagle.com/ Citizens Against Slots...; thedailyrecord.com/2012/11/04/Opinions/ Maryland Court of Appeals; Marylandcourtofappealsopinions.justia.com/ October 25, 2012]
Monday, November 5, 2012
MARYLAND AND D.C. CLERGY ABUSE: PRIESTS, MINISTERS, PASTORS, IMAMS AND RABBIS
Attorney Charles Jerome Ware is a premier Clergy abuse attorney in the Maryland and Washington, D.C. area. He and his national law firm (Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors) are well-experienced and highly regarded for their successful advocacy for child and adult victims of sexual, emotional and physical abuse by priests, ministers, pastors, imams and rabbis.
Attorney Ware can be reached by telephone (410-720-6129 or 410-730-5016), his website (www.CharlesJeromeWare.com), or one of his emails (CharlesJeromeWare@MSN.com). Initial consultation is free.
Clergy sexual abuse is not exclusively a Catholic Church problem. It is a problem that occurs in all religions and faiths.
There are some studies which state that 10 to 20 percent of all clergy --- including priests, ministers, pastors, imams and rabbis --- have had sexual contacts and involvements with their parishioners, followers, and members.
MARYLAND Statute of Limitations for Clergy and Sex Abuse Civil Cases:
There is no Statute of Limitations (SOL) for Felony clergy and sexual abuse cases.
There is no Statute of Limitations in Maryland for felony sex abuse offenses [see Clark v. State, 744 A.2d 113, n.8 (Md. 2001)]. There is a liberal classification in Maryland of sex abuse offenses [MD. CODE ANN., CRIM. LAW §§ 3-301 to -324 (2008)]. Misdemeanors sex abuse offense can be prosecuted within a year of the offense [MD. CODE ANN., CTS. & JUD. PROC. § 5-106 (2008)].
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (DC) Statute of Limitations for Sexual Abuse Civil Cases:
The law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors, knows that victims of clergy abuse need therapy and other treatment to reclaim their lives. We will do all that we can to help victims of this tragedy. Call us at (410) 720-6129 or (410) 730-5016.
Victims do not need to suffer in silence.
[forum.chnetwork.org/ "It Ain't Just Catholic Priests"; www.clergyabuse.org/states-served/ "Clergy Abuse in Washington, D.C."; "Sex Abuse by Clerics - A Crisis of Many Faiths", Los Angeles Times, Teresa Watanbe, March 25, 2003; "Theme: Clergy Sexual Abuse," The Lutheran, June 2002; "Why Do We Cover This?", Marvin Olasky (cover story), Wolrd Magazine, March 30, 2002; "rabbi's Odyssey Reflects Struggle on Sexual Abuse: Jews Begin to Confront Silence That Hid Clergy's Misdeeds", Alan Cooperman, Washington Post, Sunday, February 2, 2003, p. A17; www.adultsabusedbyclergy.org/ "Misconduct by Ministers, Priests, Rabbis and Other Clergy]
Attorney Ware can be reached by telephone (410-720-6129 or 410-730-5016), his website (www.CharlesJeromeWare.com), or one of his emails (CharlesJeromeWare@MSN.com). Initial consultation is free.
Clergy sexual abuse is not exclusively a Catholic Church problem. It is a problem that occurs in all religions and faiths.
There are some studies which state that 10 to 20 percent of all clergy --- including priests, ministers, pastors, imams and rabbis --- have had sexual contacts and involvements with their parishioners, followers, and members.
MARYLAND Statute of Limitations for Clergy and Sex Abuse Civil Cases:
- Maryland Statute of limitations state that child sex abuse cases may be filed up to 7 years after the victim’s 18th birthday [MD. CODE ANN., CTS. & JUD. PROC. § 5-117 (2008)]. Lesser suits based on injuries that are caused by sexual violations of a minor which does not constitute sexual abuse have a Statute of Limitations of 3 years; and potentially until 3 years after the victim’s 18th birthday [See id. § 5-101. Id. § 5-201].
- Maryland Courts have not extended the common law discovery rule in regards to child sexual abuse violations [see, e.g., Doe v. Archdiocese of Washington, 689 A.2d 634 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1997)].
- As of October 1, 2003, there is no retroactivity. 2003 Md. Laws 360, sec 2.
There is no Statute of Limitations (SOL) for Felony clergy and sexual abuse cases.
There is no Statute of Limitations in Maryland for felony sex abuse offenses [see Clark v. State, 744 A.2d 113, n.8 (Md. 2001)]. There is a liberal classification in Maryland of sex abuse offenses [MD. CODE ANN., CRIM. LAW §§ 3-301 to -324 (2008)]. Misdemeanors sex abuse offense can be prosecuted within a year of the offense [MD. CODE ANN., CTS. & JUD. PROC. § 5-106 (2008)].
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (DC) Statute of Limitations for Sexual Abuse Civil Cases:
- There is a delayed Statute of Limitations of 3 years after your 18th birthday for filing sexual abuse cases [D.C. Code § 12-301].
- “…the statute of limitations begins… when a plaintiff either has actual knowledge of a cause of action or is charged with knowledge of that cause of action.” [Cevenini v. Archbishop of Washington, 707 A.2d 768 (D.C. 1998)].
- Depending on individual circumstance, 1st and 2nd degree sexual abuse committed on a minor may be prosecuted up to 15 years after the offense has been committed [D.C. Code § 23-113(a)(2)].
- There is a delayed toll for minors of 10 to 15 years after the victim’s 21st birthday, contingent upon the offense [D.C. Code § 23-113(d)].
The law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors, knows that victims of clergy abuse need therapy and other treatment to reclaim their lives. We will do all that we can to help victims of this tragedy. Call us at (410) 720-6129 or (410) 730-5016.
Victims do not need to suffer in silence.
[forum.chnetwork.org/ "It Ain't Just Catholic Priests"; www.clergyabuse.org/states-served/ "Clergy Abuse in Washington, D.C."; "Sex Abuse by Clerics - A Crisis of Many Faiths", Los Angeles Times, Teresa Watanbe, March 25, 2003; "Theme: Clergy Sexual Abuse," The Lutheran, June 2002; "Why Do We Cover This?", Marvin Olasky (cover story), Wolrd Magazine, March 30, 2002; "rabbi's Odyssey Reflects Struggle on Sexual Abuse: Jews Begin to Confront Silence That Hid Clergy's Misdeeds", Alan Cooperman, Washington Post, Sunday, February 2, 2003, p. A17; www.adultsabusedbyclergy.org/ "Misconduct by Ministers, Priests, Rabbis and Other Clergy]
CASOS DE INMIGRACIO, EXJUEZ DE INMIGRACION: EN MARYLAND, VIRGINIA Y WASHINGTON, D.C. AREA
LIBRO: QUINCE (15) CONSEJOS PARA GANAR CASOS DE INMIGRACION
Extractos del libro más vendido de inmigración,
“LA PARADOJA DE LA INMIGRACION: Quince (15) Consejos para Ganar Casos de Inmigración”
Por
Abogado Charles Jerome Ware
WWW.CHARLESJEROMEWARE.COM
Ex Juez de Inmigración de Estados Unidos
Charles Ware es un ex Juez de Inmigración de los Estados Unidos. En la actualidad es director de la firma nacional general de Charles Jerome Ware, Abogados y Consejeros. Ha publicado y hablado públicamente numerosas veces sobre diversos temas jurídicos. Sus anteriores libros de mayor venta legal publicados por iUniverse en 2008, y 2009, "comprendiendo la Ley: Un Manual", así como "La Paradoja de la Inmigración", han sido bien recibidos por los lectores. El es un anterior administrador y profesor de derecho de la universidad. Charles Ware ha sido presentado en su propio programa Numero Uno de radio de Consejos legales, así como otros numerosos programas de radio y televisión. El vive en Columbia, Maryland con su esposa Fran y su hija Lucinda- Marie.
Charles Ware, desde hace varios años, a sido nombrado constantemente como uno de los "GRANDES ABOGADOS" de America. El es uno de los recipientes originales del "Premio Charles Hamilton Houston para Abogacia Jurídica destacada", y es reconocido nacionalmente por su defensa legal y de la inmigración. El Bufete Nacional de Abogados, Charles Jerome Ware, Abogados y Consejeros, puede ser contactado a través de su página web, WWW.CHARLESJEROMEWARE.COM, y telefono (410-720-6129) en Columbia, Maryland --- entre Washington, D.C y Baltimore, Maryland.
Anteriormente Juez Federal de Derecho Administrativo:
Abogado Principal y Consejero Anti-fideicomiso al Director de la Comisión Federal de Comercio; Fiscal Asistente de E.U.; para Maryland y el Distrito del Este de Virginia; Abogado Litigante Principal de la División de Anti-fideicomiso y la División Criminal del Departamento de Justicia de E.U.; Profesor de la Escuela de Leyes de Boston College y Profesor visitante de Harvard Law School; Vice-presidente Ejecutivo y Asesor General para Saint Paul’s College
Friday, November 2, 2012
MARYLAND CAR DEATH: The Laws By Wrongful Death Attorney Charles Jerome Ware (PART A)
The national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors, is a premier wrongful death law firm headquartered in Maryland and Washington, D.C. We are: "Still working. Still committed. Still here to make a difference."
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Fatality Analysis Reporting System, at least 493 car deaths occurred in Maryland in 2010 alone. In that same year, 32,885 people died in motor vehicle traffic crashes in the United States.
Further, according to Transportation for America (TA), an advocacy group, Maryland is ranked 15th among the most dangerous states for pedestrians. From 2000 to 2009, according to TA, about 47,700 pedestrians were killed in the United States.
The Maryland Wrongful Death Statute can be found in Md. Courts And Judicial Proceedings Code Ann. § 3-904. Pursuant to the Act, the following persons shall be the primary beneficiaries in a wrongful death action:
1) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of this subsection, an action under this subtitle shall be for the benefit of the wife, husband, parent, and child of the deceased person.
(2) A parent may not be a beneficiary in a wrongful death action for the death of a child of the parent if:
(i)
1. The parent is convicted under §§ 3-303 through 3-308, § 3-323, § 3-601, or § 3-602 of the Criminal Law Article; or
2. The parent committed an act prohibited under §§ 3-303 through 3-308, § 3-323, § 3-601, or § 3-602 of the Criminal Law Article;
(ii) The other parent of the child is the victim of the crime or act described under item (i) of this paragraph; and
(iii) The other parent of the child is a child of the parent.
(3) (i) An action under this subtitle for the wrongful death of a child caused by the parent of the child allowed under the provisions of § 5-806 of this article may not be for the benefit of that parent of the deceased child.
(ii) An action under this subtitle for the wrongful death of a parent caused by a child of the parent allowed under the provisions of § 5-806 of this article may not be for the benefit of that child of the deceased parent.
If there are no persons who qualify under subsection (a), an action shall be for the benefit of any person related to the deceased person by blood or marriage who was substantially dependent upon the deceased.
In an action under this subtitle, damages may be awarded to the beneficiaries proportional to the injury resulting from the wrongful death. The amount shall be recovered and divided among the beneficiaries in shares directed by the verdict.
The damages awarded for death of a spouse, a minor child, or a parent are not limited or restricted by the “pecuniary loss” or “pecuniary benefit” rule but may include damages for mental anguish, emotional pain and suffering, loss of society, companionship, comfort, protection, marital care, parental care, filial care, attention, advice, counsel, training, guidance, or education where applicable. An unmarried child who is not a minor child is also included in the category if: (i) the child is 21 years old or younger; or (ii) a parent contributed 50 percent or more of the child’s support within the 12-month period immediately before the date of death of the child.
Except when death is caused by a disease caused by exposure to any toxic substance in the person’s workplace and contracted by a person in the course of the person’s employment. an action under this subtitle shall be filed within three years after the death of the injured person. However, If an occupational disease was a cause of a person’s death, an action shall be filed: within 10 years of the time of death; or Within 3 years of the date when the cause of death was discovered, whichever is less.
For the purposes of this section, a person born to parents who have not participated in a marriage ceremony with each other is considered to be the child of the mother. The person is considered to be the child of the father only if the father:
(1) Has been judicially determined to be the father in a proceeding brought under § 5-1010 of the Family Law Article or § 1-208 of the Estates and Trusts Article; or
(2) Prior to the death of the child:
(i) Has acknowledged himself, in writing, to be the father;
(ii) Has openly and notoriously recognized the person to be his child; or
(iii) Has subsequently married the mother and has acknowledged himself, orally or in writing, to be the father[i].
[i] Md. Courts And Judicial Proceedings Code Ann. § 3-904
[death.uslegal.com/ Maryland Wrongful Death Laws; y4america.org/ Transportation for America; Traffic Safety Facts, NHTSA, U.S. Department of Transportation (DoT), DoT HS 811 552, Revised February 2012]
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Fatality Analysis Reporting System, at least 493 car deaths occurred in Maryland in 2010 alone. In that same year, 32,885 people died in motor vehicle traffic crashes in the United States.
Further, according to Transportation for America (TA), an advocacy group, Maryland is ranked 15th among the most dangerous states for pedestrians. From 2000 to 2009, according to TA, about 47,700 pedestrians were killed in the United States.
The Maryland Wrongful Death Statute can be found in Md. Courts And Judicial Proceedings Code Ann. § 3-904. Pursuant to the Act, the following persons shall be the primary beneficiaries in a wrongful death action:
1) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of this subsection, an action under this subtitle shall be for the benefit of the wife, husband, parent, and child of the deceased person.
(2) A parent may not be a beneficiary in a wrongful death action for the death of a child of the parent if:
(i)
1. The parent is convicted under §§ 3-303 through 3-308, § 3-323, § 3-601, or § 3-602 of the Criminal Law Article; or
2. The parent committed an act prohibited under §§ 3-303 through 3-308, § 3-323, § 3-601, or § 3-602 of the Criminal Law Article;
(ii) The other parent of the child is the victim of the crime or act described under item (i) of this paragraph; and
(iii) The other parent of the child is a child of the parent.
(3) (i) An action under this subtitle for the wrongful death of a child caused by the parent of the child allowed under the provisions of § 5-806 of this article may not be for the benefit of that parent of the deceased child.
(ii) An action under this subtitle for the wrongful death of a parent caused by a child of the parent allowed under the provisions of § 5-806 of this article may not be for the benefit of that child of the deceased parent.
If there are no persons who qualify under subsection (a), an action shall be for the benefit of any person related to the deceased person by blood or marriage who was substantially dependent upon the deceased.
In an action under this subtitle, damages may be awarded to the beneficiaries proportional to the injury resulting from the wrongful death. The amount shall be recovered and divided among the beneficiaries in shares directed by the verdict.
The damages awarded for death of a spouse, a minor child, or a parent are not limited or restricted by the “pecuniary loss” or “pecuniary benefit” rule but may include damages for mental anguish, emotional pain and suffering, loss of society, companionship, comfort, protection, marital care, parental care, filial care, attention, advice, counsel, training, guidance, or education where applicable. An unmarried child who is not a minor child is also included in the category if: (i) the child is 21 years old or younger; or (ii) a parent contributed 50 percent or more of the child’s support within the 12-month period immediately before the date of death of the child.
Except when death is caused by a disease caused by exposure to any toxic substance in the person’s workplace and contracted by a person in the course of the person’s employment. an action under this subtitle shall be filed within three years after the death of the injured person. However, If an occupational disease was a cause of a person’s death, an action shall be filed: within 10 years of the time of death; or Within 3 years of the date when the cause of death was discovered, whichever is less.
For the purposes of this section, a person born to parents who have not participated in a marriage ceremony with each other is considered to be the child of the mother. The person is considered to be the child of the father only if the father:
(1) Has been judicially determined to be the father in a proceeding brought under § 5-1010 of the Family Law Article or § 1-208 of the Estates and Trusts Article; or
(2) Prior to the death of the child:
(i) Has acknowledged himself, in writing, to be the father;
(ii) Has openly and notoriously recognized the person to be his child; or
(iii) Has subsequently married the mother and has acknowledged himself, orally or in writing, to be the father[i].
[i] Md. Courts And Judicial Proceedings Code Ann. § 3-904
[death.uslegal.com/ Maryland Wrongful Death Laws; y4america.org/ Transportation for America; Traffic Safety Facts, NHTSA, U.S. Department of Transportation (DoT), DoT HS 811 552, Revised February 2012]
CAR ACCIDENTS IN MARYLAND AND WASHINGTON, D.C.: A Primer By Personal Injury Attorney Charles Jerome Ware (PART I)
The national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors, specializes in car accidents in the Maryland and Washington, D.C. geographic area. We are: "Still here. Still committed. Still here to make a difference."
Without a doubt, the vast majority of cases in state and federal courts in the United States involve cars (automobiles). A huge percentage of these cases involve "car accidents", aka "automobile accidents".
In Maryland, for instance, traffic crashes are the number 1 killer of people between the ages of 4 and 34. Each year, in Maryland, traffic crashes kill more people than homicides. In fact, it is reported that the frequency of car accidents in the city of Baltimore, Maryland ranks 2nd worst in the United States.
Only drivers in Washington, D.C. experience car crashes more often than Baltimore, Maryland.
[www.nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; Understanding the Law: A Primer, Charles Jerome Ware, iUniverse Publishers (2008); www.mva.maryland.gov/Driver Safety/Stats/Maryland Crash Summary]
Actually, more than 90% of total crashes in Maryland, Washington, D.C., and throughout the United States are preventable accidents caused by "driver error".
[Source: Maryland Highway Safety Office, www.mva.maryland.gov; Maryland Crash Summary].
In 2010, approximately 32,885 people died in "motor vehicle traffic crashes in the United States". Also in the same year, an estimated 2,240,000 people were injured in motor vehicle crashes.
[see, "Traffic Safety Facts, Research Note," Revised February 2012, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), DOT HS 811 552].
STEPS TO TAKE AFTER A CAR ACCIDENT IN MARYLAND AND WASHINGTON, D.C.:
1. Be deliberate, methodical, and safe. Stop the car, turn off the engine, and if you can physically and safely do so, exit the car. Think safety.
2. Call 911. You will need the police; and you may need an ambulance.
3. Try to get the personal information (name, address, telephone) on any witnesses.
4. Otherwise, try to be quiet. Avoid what us lawyers call "spontaneous utterances".
5. If you are injured, seek medical attention.
6. Try to listen and remember as many details about the accident as possible.
7. If you have a camera or camera phone, take pictures of the scene and damage.
8. Seek legal counsel before making reports to insurance companies.
Without a doubt, the vast majority of cases in state and federal courts in the United States involve cars (automobiles). A huge percentage of these cases involve "car accidents", aka "automobile accidents".
In Maryland, for instance, traffic crashes are the number 1 killer of people between the ages of 4 and 34. Each year, in Maryland, traffic crashes kill more people than homicides. In fact, it is reported that the frequency of car accidents in the city of Baltimore, Maryland ranks 2nd worst in the United States.
Only drivers in Washington, D.C. experience car crashes more often than Baltimore, Maryland.
[www.nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; Understanding the Law: A Primer, Charles Jerome Ware, iUniverse Publishers (2008); www.mva.maryland.gov/Driver Safety/Stats/Maryland Crash Summary]
Actually, more than 90% of total crashes in Maryland, Washington, D.C., and throughout the United States are preventable accidents caused by "driver error".
[Source: Maryland Highway Safety Office, www.mva.maryland.gov; Maryland Crash Summary].
In 2010, approximately 32,885 people died in "motor vehicle traffic crashes in the United States". Also in the same year, an estimated 2,240,000 people were injured in motor vehicle crashes.
[see, "Traffic Safety Facts, Research Note," Revised February 2012, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), DOT HS 811 552].
STEPS TO TAKE AFTER A CAR ACCIDENT IN MARYLAND AND WASHINGTON, D.C.:
1. Be deliberate, methodical, and safe. Stop the car, turn off the engine, and if you can physically and safely do so, exit the car. Think safety.
2. Call 911. You will need the police; and you may need an ambulance.
3. Try to get the personal information (name, address, telephone) on any witnesses.
4. Otherwise, try to be quiet. Avoid what us lawyers call "spontaneous utterances".
5. If you are injured, seek medical attention.
6. Try to listen and remember as many details about the accident as possible.
7. If you have a camera or camera phone, take pictures of the scene and damage.
8. Seek legal counsel before making reports to insurance companies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)